KRISTOL’S FOLLY
I’ve taken The Weekly Standard’s Editor Bill Kristol to task before on this site. His rah-rah attitude toward foreign military adventures can be wearing, especially when the United States is preoccupied in Iraq. It’s not that Kristol doesn’t think these things through, it’s just that he appears to be quite cavalier in his attitude toward expending American power. He seems to believe it is a bottomless well.
Kristol has written an editorial at The Weekly Standard that essentially says the United States should jump into the fray in the Middle East and help Israel.
The first part of his editorial actually makes good sense:
What’s happening in the Middle East, then, isn’t just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What’s happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West–but is India part of the West? Better to say that what’s under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States.
An Islamist-Israeli conflict may or may not be more dangerous than the old Arab-Israeli conflict. Secular Arab nationalism was, after all, also capable of posing an existential threat to Israel. And the Islamist threat to liberal democracy may or may not turn out to be as dangerous as the threats posed in the last century by secular forms of irrationalism (fascism) and illiberalism (communism). But it is a new and different threat. One needs to keep this in mind when trying to draw useful lessons from our successes, and failures, in dealing with the threats of the 20th century.
Here, however, is one lesson that does seem to hold: States matter. Regimes matter. Ideological movements become more dangerous when they become governing regimes of major nations. Communism became really dangerous when it seized control of Russia. National socialism became really dangerous when it seized control of Germany. Islamism became really dangerous when it seized control of Iran–which then became, as it has been for the last 27 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Indeed, Kristol has it pegged exactly. Israel is fighting for its existence not against pan-Arabism but rather against an extremist ideology that feels emboldened not out any strategic or political calculations but out of a divine sense of mission. I leave it to the reader to decide which is more dangerous.
If Kristol was only going to write about the nature of this challenge to Israeli national security, he would have been better off. It is when he tries to wed US interests entirely to the interests of the Jewish state that he loses me:
For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
The right response is renewed strength–in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions–and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.
International “tests” of the kind that Kristol claims Iran and Syria are giving to the United States have very little meaning. Do either of those nations believe that they can stand up to the US militarily? Of course not. And they need not test our resolve. They only need to look next door in Iraq. We have 140,000 American boys and girls proving our resolve to “stand” with the Iraqis every day and several thousand more youngsters in Afghanistan doing the same thing.
Not bombing Iran is not the same as weakness. And answering Kristol’s question about Iranian nukes is a fruitless exercise at this point. Whether or not the Iranians will give up their nuclear program peacefully is not a question that has to be resolved at this time. More importantly, Kristol’s advocacy of taking out Iranian nuclear sites right now points up the fallacy of the entire thrust of his editorial.
No Bill, this is definitely not “our” war.
This is Israel’s war. Great powers do not allow small powers to dictate when and where they expend their military might and the lives of their young men. If we must confront the Iranians, it will be at a time of our own choosing and for reasons having to do with our own national interest, not the interest of a small ally.
I wish Israel well in their efforts to protect themselves from aggression by Iran and Syria as well as their proxies. And I applaud the response of the United States government to this point. We have correctly said that this is a security matter for the Israelis and we are rightly asking them to limit civilian casualties. We have commiserated with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora while urging him to act against the terrorists who attack Israel with impunity from within his borders. The fact that much of the Lebanese government also wants to rein in Hizballah may mean that if Israel can finish the job of dismantling the terrorists fairly quickly, they may end up doing the Lebanese government a huge favor, acting where there was no political will to act on the part of Siniora’s ministers.
But dragging the United States into this conflict by taking the opportunity to bomb Iran is, frankly, a ridiculous notion. Why now? Is it because there’s a shooting war going on between Israel and its blood enemies and Kristol thinks no one will notice if we go a-bombing in Iran?
There is no strategic advantage to bombing now compared to a year or two years from now. It’s not like the facilities are going to get up and walk away. They will still be there unless we can convince the Iranians that they will never build a nuclear weapon as long as the United States has anything to say about it. And since I actually agree with Kristol that the likelihood of that happening are about as close to zero as you can get, it very well may be that some day, Iran’s turn will come. But why it should happen now except as an adjunct to what Israel is doing?
It should go without saying that one can believe that Israel is within its rights to defend itself against Hezbollah without also believing that the U.S. should become involved in this extraordinarily flammable conflict. But these neoconservatives don’t recognize that distinction. As they are now expressly arguing, Israel’s enemies are America’s enemies, and this war being waged by Israel ought to become America’s war — and the sooner the better.
I believe it is obvious to most Americans, who have turned completely on the war in Iraq, that it is sheer lunacy to expand that failed war effort to now include American war on even more countries — including more powerful ones with more powerful allies, such as Iran — let alone to do so as part of, and in the middle of, an Arab-Israeli war. But if there is one lesson that we ought to have learned over the past several years, it is that there is no militaristic proposal too crazed or extremist to be undertaken by this administration. And anyone who thinks that these neoconservatives now lack real influence within the Bush administration is sorely mistaken.
First, Greenwald may want to inform his readers about all those “militaristic proposals” that are “too crazed or extremist” that have been “undertaken” by the Administration. Of course there are none. Greenwald, Mr. Hyperbole, is a serial exaggerator and unless I’ve missed a war or two in the past 6 years, he can safely be dismissed in this instance as a partisan hack.
However, the rest of his point has validity. Neo-conservatives badly miscalculated in Iraq and our boys have been paying for it for three years. And now that the end of a massive US presence in Iraq is actually in sight, we should take a step back and examine what the neocons have wrought with their policies (policies that I originally supported but believe were carried out in some instances with monstrous incompetence). Iraq will be a wary partner for the foreseeable future but useless as an ally as their military might will be directed for years against both al-Qaeda in Iraq and a diminishing Sunni insurgency at home. This means they will have zero impact on our strategic plans except as a base for operations against Iran. And it’s no means certain that the Iraqis would allow us to use those bases for an attack anyway. As a military player in the Middle East, the Iraqis are a decade away.
If the neoconservatives had a track record of success, I might be more inclined to listen to Kristol, John Podhoretz, and Michael Ledeen who have all come out in the last 2 days advocating American military action in support of Israel. As it is, we should look at policy alternatives that take into account our interests first. Israel is perfectly capable of taking care of itself as they have proven time and time again. If they want or need any help, I’m sure they won’t be shy about asking for it.
Uh, Bill Kristol isn’t Editor of National Review. I think you are thinking of The Weekly Standard.
Comment by Don Pendergraft — 7/15/2006 @ 6:17 pm
Thanks Dan. I picked a helluva week to stop sniffing glue.
Comment by Rick Moran — 7/15/2006 @ 6:20 pm
I think Kristol and you are both right, it is ‘our’ war, a war that is being fought on a number of fronts: Israel is fighting on one, our troops in Iraq are fighting on another, as is India and even Russia. That said, there probably is no reason or need for us to get involved in this particular battle (just as it didn’t make sense for Rosevelt to send troops to the Russian front during WWII). And it may not make tactical sense for us to open a new front with Iran now. But we are at war with Iran, we are at war with Hezbollah… just as we are at war with the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and at war with Al Qaeda across the globe. It’s simply a matter of picking the right time and place to have the battles we must eventually have.
Comment by steve sturm — 7/15/2006 @ 6:28 pm
and besides: does Israel really need military help right now? Emotional support, yes. Bush to restrain himself from calling for Israel restraint, yes. But Israel doesn’t need the 82nd Airborne to deal with what it needs to deal with.
Comment by steve sturm — 7/15/2006 @ 6:30 pm
Sounds like we’re basically in agreement, Rick. Israel is a somewhat more complex case than Kristol and others are making it out.
On the one hand, its a liberal democracy fighting for its survival against authoritarian thugs hiding behind religion as well as being our best contact in the region. In that role it’s to some degree our fight. We have an interest.
But, on the other hand, it’s a state that’s fighting for an ethnic and cultural identity and that is emphatically not our fight.
With the aid we’ve given it over the years Israel is more than able to hold up its own end against its immediate neighbors (Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territory). It doesn’t need our help against its near foes.
That’s why I’ve argued for an explicit policy of negative reciprocity on our part in this conflict. If Iran holds itself out of the fray, we should as well.
There have been reports that Iran is already actively involved. I have no way of knowing whether this is true. It’s all the more reason to have an explicit policy of negative reciprocity.
Comment by Dave Schuler — 7/15/2006 @ 9:20 pm
It’s one war. It’s the war against Islamofascism. Whether it makes any sense to start bombing Iran is a separate question, but Iran is using Hezbollah against Israel and whatever local terrorists are handy to destabilize Iraq. One war, lots of fronts.
Comment by Christopher Fotos — 7/15/2006 @ 10:36 pm
I agree that it is “One war, lots of fronts.” But in this case, let our Israeli allies take care of this particular problem while we watch their backs.
How can we “watch their backs” except doing what we are doing - providing diplomatic cover for them. But is that all? Iran desperately wants to jump into the middle of this fracas. They basically instigated it. And for them the next logical step in leading the pan-islamic jihad is to take the military lead in this confrontation with the Zionists. Transporting a few thousand troops across friendly borders to get at the Jews could be a likely scenario.
And Israel could not easily strike back. Yes, they have a great Air Force. But Iran is over 900 kilometers away - and that is measuring border to border. From IAF bases to potential taget areas in Iran is over 1,100 klicks - one way. And the Israelis do not have a strategic air refueling capability.
But they do have US forces on both sides of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) and the US Navy carrier task forces in the Med and other areas close by (Indian Ocean, etc.) And the fact that of our presence alone should keep the Iranian’s attention.
But on a more sober note what if Iran intends this to be the “Big One” and is looking for any excuse to start the fireworks?
Comment by SShiell — 7/15/2006 @ 11:20 pm
Make no mistake about it Israel is in a war with Islamic Fanitics who only have one goal, which is to destroy them. Hezbollah and Hamas are now and will always hide amoung civillians for protection. I believe that Israel should do every thing in their power to destroy both these organizations once and forever. These two groups specifically have always gainned a concession and then increased thier demands consistantly. Remember their stated goal. I do not believe we as a Nation need to provide more than we are already,political help,hardware , etc.
Comment by Bart Smith — 7/15/2006 @ 11:53 pm
Rick writes:
There exist threats that Israel will have to seriously get a grip on and the U.S. cannot be a silent partner. That is why behind the scenes we are trying with great exertion to contain this conflagration. First, like as in Iraq, Iranian Revolutionary Guards are in thick of the fighting. The C-802 missile strike on their Sa’ar-5 class corvette was a shock to the Israelis (who, if he were an American naval captain, would be crucified for dereliction of duty) both because of its presence in Lebanon and that the Iranians fielded that battery. Hezbollah under Iranian military command which also fields it own forces means the supposed checkmate of Iran through Afghanistan and Iraq have leveraged the U.S. with that combined force now presenting a threat through the entire Iraqi western front.
If Hezbollah or the Revolutionary Guards were to unleash a weapon in the WMD class or if Iran were to launch from their territory, who is in the flyover zone for the first or second strikes? Whether in a first strike or the retaliatory one, you can bet the casino that the barrage from Iran will be everything on the shelf from short to long range missiles, a few will not make it to Tel Aviv but perhaps the Green Zone and a few other concentration areas that would decapitate our forces in Iraq in a catastrophic way. Praying that Iran has no working WMDs is a risk I wouldn’t take.
The U.S. would have to decide now, not later what contingencies there are in the worst-case scenarios. For sure any exchange between Israel and Iran would have to fly over Iraqi airspace, with Israel having a small percentage possibly out of territory. With Iranian forces already in the conflict against the U.S. and now Israel, none of our options including timing are of our choosing but better be anticipated or we can pay a dear price for not doing so.
Comment by Badge 2211 — 7/16/2006 @ 2:59 am
Our War
Bill Kristol:What’s happening in the Middle East, then, isn’t just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What’s …
Trackback by Chris At Home — 7/16/2006 @ 4:40 am
Dragging the United States into this conflict by taking the opportunity to bomb Iran is, frankly, a ridiculous notion. Spot on, Rick.
Comment by kreiz — 7/16/2006 @ 5:43 pm
Just curious. How do you square this..
With this…
Some would argue that the nightmare that is currently Iraq was certainly, in retrospect, “militaristic proposals†that have resulted in great losses to both our treasury, our youth, and our world standing.
As a matter of fact, many did prior to 2003. Weren’t you one of them?
Comment by Davebo — 7/16/2006 @ 7:27 pm
Kristol is right when he portrays this as a war pitting Islamists against the West. And just like the war in Iraq, it must be won. Engaging with Israel at this point would, however, be a mistake. The Israelis are big boys, quite capable of taking care of themselves, quite capable of making sound military and political decisions. Why risk alienating muslim allies in Iraq simply to provide superfluous assistance? Nor have I heard Israel ask the US to intercede. On the contrary, they would undoubtedly prefer that we keep our missiles and our inevitable requests for “calm” to ourselves. Our most useful role will be that of cheerleader and defender of what will sooner rather than later be and embattled nation facing recriminations from most of the countries of the world. As bodies of innocent civilian human shields continue to pile up around Hizbollahs heroes, demands for an Israeli cease fire will come from all sides. And as facts won’t matter, we will have to stand for Israels right to self-defense. Irans super-dangerous mullocracy will have to be dealt with–that is destroyed or overthrown–soon, but lets keep that part of our powder dry for the time being.
Comment by OLDPUPPYMAX — 7/16/2006 @ 9:03 pm